ABBVIE: Judge Tosses Bulk of Insurer's RICO Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that afederal judge has tossed, with leave to amend, the bulk of afederal racketeering and fraud class action brought by an Ohio-based health insurer against Abbvie and other makers oftestosterone drugs, saying the insurer has not yet backed up withenough particularity its allegations the drugmakers invented thecondition known as "low T," and, through false marketing todoctors, patients and insurers alike, induced insurers and othersto pay far more for the drugs to treat the condition than theyotherwise should have.

On Feb. 4, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted inlarge part the motion by a group of defendant drugmakers,including Abbvie, Solvay, Besins, Glaxosmithkline, Eli Lilly,Actavis and others, to dismiss the putative class action broughtby Cleveland-based Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO).

According to court documents, in the action filed in Chicagofederal court in November 2014, MMO alleged they and other third-party payers fell prey to "fraudulent marketing schemes" from thedrugmakers to "boost (testosterone drug) sales by deceivingpatients, primary care physicians and third-party payers about thedrugs' safety and efficacy for treating certina conditions." Thealleged misrepresentations led the insurers to reimburse paymentsfor purportedly "medically inappropriate (testosterone drug)prescriptions," court documents said.

MMO said the drugmakers marketed the drugs as "a safe andeffective treatment for various 'off label' conditions," courtdocuments said, leading the insurer to file its complaint allegingviolations of federal racketeering and mail and wire fraud lawsagainst a subgroup of defendants, including Abbvie, Auxilium,Lilly, Actavis and Endo Pharmaceuticals, and common law fraudcounts against all the named defendant drugmakers.

While the testosterone drugs have been approved by the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration to treat just one condition, known as"classical hypogonadism," in which the body does not producesufficient testosterone to engage in "normal functions." MMO,however, said the drug companies led patients and doctors tobelieve the drugs were also "safe and effective" to treat othersymptoms and conditions, including erectile dysfunction, diabetes,AIDS, cancer, depression and obesity, amid an "off-label marketingscheme . . . that promoted the existence of a false disease,called 'Andropause' or 'Low T,' which they had invented."

MMO said medical evidence doesn't back up the drugmakers'assertions, but "does show that off-label (testosterone drug) useis associated with increased incidence" of a range of potentiallydeadly circulatory and cardiovascular conditions, including heartattacks, strokes and blood clotting conditions.

The assertions of the drugs' benefits, however, led to a rash ofprescriptions for the drugs to treat a number of "off-label"conditions, leading MMO to pay out large sums in reimbursement.According to court documents, MMO said it paid more than $38.9million in "unnecessary and unsafe" testosterone drugreimbursements from Nov. 2001 to April 2015.

In those cases, federal court documents indicate the court willselect certain "bellwether" cases to head to trial. Those caseswill be selected later this year, and the trials are expected tostart in the spring of 2017.

In response to the MMO lawsuit, most of the drugmakers joined in amotion to dismiss the insurers' action, saying MMO and itsputative fellow class members don't have standing to sue, theydidn't file their complaint in time and their allegations that thedrugmakers' marketing was the reason they paid what they did forthe testosterone drugs are not specific enough to allow the caseto move forward.

Drugmakers, for instance, argued MMO did not present a single,specific instance of a doctor prescribing nor a patient demandingreimbursement for the testosterone drugs based specifically on thedrugmakers' marketing.

And the drugmakers argued MMO and other insurers had placed thedrug on their "formularies," or lists of drugs approved forreimbursement, and thus likely could not have turned downreimbursement demands from patients even if the insurers had knownof the alleged fraudulent marketing.

The judge, however, said the insurer cleared all of those hurdlesat this stage in the proceedings, noting the drugmakers haddirected their allegedly misleading marketing to insurers, as wellas to patients, and the resulting decision by the insurers toplace the drugs on their formularies and reimburse theprescription costs marked an economic injury for which the insurercan sue.

"Plaintiff alleges that the . . . defendants created a falsedisease and claimed that their drugs could treat it safely andeffectively; concealed evidence of the drugs' risks; distorted thescholarly literature about their drugs and about their falsedisease; and launched nationwide campaigns to make falserepresentations about their drugs to consumers, physicians, and(third-party payers)," the judge wrote. "Accepting theseallegations as true, as the Court must do at this stage, one canreasonably infer that at least some of the $38,962.566.73plaintiff paid (for testosterone) drugs was likely spent on drugsfor which it would never have paid absent defendants' allegedschemes."

The judge also noted the insurer has procedures in place thatwould allow it to restrict reimbursements for off-label use of thetestosterone drugs, if MMO had known of the allegedly fraudulentclaims.

The judge, though, said the defendant drugmakers were correct inasserting MMO has not yet declared with enough specificityprecisely who made fraudulent misrepresentations, and to whom;when they were made; and how.

"Plaintiff alleges generally that defendants made directmisrepresentations or fraudulent omissions to it, whether inperson, in writing or by telephone," the judge said. "One wouldexpect plaintiff to have information about the approximate datesand locations (if done in person), as well as information aboutthe contents of the alleged misrepresentations or omissions.

"Under the circumstances, it is not unnecessarily burdensome torequire plaintiff to include such information in its complaint."

The lack of particularity, the judge said, meant MMO's complaintfell short of satisfying the requirements of procedural rulesgoverning such federal racketeering lawsuits.

Judge Kennelly gave MMO until March 3 to amend its complaint tocure the deficiencies.

MMO is represented in the action by the firm of Simmons HanlyConroy, of Alton; Kanner & Whiteley, of New Orleans; and SimmerLaw Group, of Washington, D.C.

AMERICAN GREETING: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action---------------------------------------------------Tawny L. Alvarez, Esq. -- talvarez@verrilldana.com -- of VerrillDana LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that American GreetingCorporation settled a wage and hour class action under the FLSAand California state wage and hour laws in Smith v. AmericanGreetings Corp., No. 3:14cv02577 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016).Additionally Plaintiffs brought claims under the CaliforniaPrivate Attorneys General Act which permits litigants to act asrepresentative plaintiffs without court ordered classcertification. The action was brought on behalf of 3,743 fieldsale operation employees in California. The class action allegedthat employees were not fully reimbursed for mileage, meals andmobile phone expenses that were associated with travel to worksites. The class members were responsible for maintaining andassembling greeting card displays in well-known retail locationsincluding Target and Rite-Aid. American Greeting Corporationsettled for $4 million which was approximately 20 percent of whatthe workers would have been entitled to if every claim had beensuccessful at trial.

"This is a case that needs a limited fund class action toefficiently resolve the disputes. Nearly 250 people were eitherinjured or killed on May 12, 2015 as a result of the Amtrakderailment. This event is obviously the fault of Amtrak," saidMr. McCaffrey.

WJZ obtained the documents--a move that could potentially lump allplaintiffs into one suit.

It states Amtrak is liable for injuries, and damages and since itis limited fund, it could potentially cost Amtrak $295 million--but would be no more than that -- while putting $50 million to $70million more in plaintiffs' pockets due to reduced legal fees.

"This is to avoid settlements that leave persons out, that havenot filed suit or unfair or unjustified amounts of money topersons who simply win that race to a courthouse. There has beena scramble to the courthouse by a number of plaintiffs, which isinevitable in a tragedy like this," said Mr. McCaffrey.

The move comes just days after the NTSB released its newest reporton the crash, featuring interviews with the train's engineer.Many have criticized his inconsistency and the fact thattechnology wasn't in place to prevent the crash.

"You have fault, all of which at the end of the day isattributable to Amtrak," said Pennsylvania attorney Tom Kline, whorepresents 27 victims in the derailment.

"We have an issue of human error and an issue of technology thatshould have been in place and wasn't," said Daniel Miller, whosefirm, the Law Offices of Daniel J. Miller, has represented Amtrakvictims in the past.

A wreck that's left a devastating impact.

"A lot of people lost their lives and many more lost the right tohave the lives they were living," Mr. Kline said.

Class action suit still needs to be approved.

Mr. McCaffrey says he's unsure if Amtrak is on board with theclass action lawsuit and won't have an idea on a court date untilthey get a response.

Mr. McCaffrey says he looks forward to working with at least threeor four other lawyers who already have clients involved in thiscase.

"We think that's just absurd and we hope the High Court agrees,"he told ABC TV.

The decision will affect every banking customer who has ever paida late payment fee on a credit card in Australia, he said.

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Minzer" Suit Over Proposed Merger Deal----------------------------------------------------------------Shoshana Minzer, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Astoria FinancialCorporation, John R. Chrin, John J. Corrado, Robert Giambrone,Gerard C. Keegan, Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz, Ralph F.Palleschi, Monte N. Redman, and New York Community Bancorp, Inc.,the Defendants, Case No. 607358/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, Nassau County,December 12, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking anysteps to consummate the proposed merger agreement between Astoriaand New York Community Bancorp, Inc., unless and until Defendantscure their breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abettingor, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, recoverdamages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations offiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and due care.

Astoria Financial Corporation operates as the holding company forAstoria Federal Savings and Loan Association that provides variousfinancial products and services in the United States. The companyaccepts various deposit products, including passbook and statementsavings accounts, money market accounts, NOW and demand depositaccounts, and certificates of deposit. It also offers loanproducts comprising residential mortgage, and multi-family andcommercial real estate loans; and consumer and other loans, suchas home equity lines of credit, overdraft protection, lines ofcredit, commercial loans, and passbook loans. In addition, thecompany provides life insurance agency services. As of June 1,2014, it operated through 86 convenient banking branch locations;1 business banking office; and various delivery channels,including astoriabank.com. The company was founded in 1888 and isheadquartered in Lake Success, New York.

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: MSS 12-09 Trust Files Suit Over Proposed Merger------------------------------------------------------------------MSS 12-09 TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. Ralph F. Palleschi, Monte N. Redman,Gerard C. Keegan, John R. Chrin, John J. Corrado, RobertGiambrone, Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz, AstoriaFinancial Corporation, Astoria Bank, New York Community Bancorp,Inc., New York Community Bank, the Defendants, Case No.607472/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, Nassau County, November 11, 2015), asksthe court to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummatethe agreement and plan of merger between Astoria, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Astoria Bank and New York Community Bancorp,Inc. (Proposed Merger) or, in the event the Proposed Merger isconsummated, recover damages resulting from the IndividualDefendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of good faith,loyalty, and due care.

Astoria Financial Corporation operates as the holding company forAstoria Federal Savings and Loan Association that provides variousfinancial products and services in the United States. The companyaccepts various deposit products, including passbook and statementsavings accounts, money market accounts, NOW and demand depositaccounts, and certificates of deposit. It also offers loanproducts comprising residential mortgage, and multi-family andcommercial real estate loans; and consumer and other loans, suchas home equity lines of credit, overdraft protection, lines ofcredit, commercial loans, and passbook loans. In addition, thecompany provides life insurance agency services. As of June 1,2014, it operated through 86 convenient banking branch locations;1 business banking office; and various delivery channels,including astoriabank.com. The company was founded in 1888 and isheadquartered in Lake Success, New York.

BANAMEX USA: Faces "Blatt" Suit over Excessive Fees---------------------------------------------------Robert Blatt as Trustee of the Ricardo Trust, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BanamexUSA, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (N.D. Ill., EasternDivision, December 31, 2015), seeks an order of restitution anddisgorgement of all excessive fees collected by Defendant.

Banamex is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup. It was an armof Banco Nacional de Mexico, Mexico's second-largest bank, whichis owned by Citigroup. Banamex (then called California CommerceBank) was acquired by Citigroup in August 2001 as part ofCitigroup's purchase of Banco Nacional de Mexico, that country'ssecond-largest bank. At its peak, Banamex had more than a billiondollars is assets and more than $700 million in deposits. By July,2015, it had shrunk to $500 million in assets, $460 million indeposits. In July 2015, it had more than 300 employees.

BANK OF AMERICA: "Buckingham" Suit Seeks Premium Wages and OT-------------------------------------------------------------Allen Buckingham, individually, on behalf of others similarlysituated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.Bank of America Corp., Inc., and Does 1-50, the Defendants, CaseNo. 3:15-cv-06344-JCS (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2015), seeks remedyDefendants' failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation,provide or authorize meal and rest periods or pay meal and restperiod premium wages, and maintain accurate time records, andfailing to correct all of the deficiencies, in addition torestitutionary and injunctive relief in violations of Fair LaborStandards Act, California Labor Code, and Cal. Business andProfessions Code.

Bank of America operates as a full service bank. The Bank acceptsdeposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investmentservice for the public. The Bank is headquartered at Charlotte,North Carolina.

The action concerns the Defendants' collusion in and manipulationof the market for U.S. Treasury securities, including Treasurybills, notes, bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities andfloating rate notes, and derivative instruments based on suchsecurities, including U.S. Treasury futures and options.

The Defendants are primary dealers of Treasury Securities andtransacted in Treasury Securities and Treasury Instruments withplaintiff and members of the Class.

BANKIA SA: Faces Class Action Over 2011 Stock Listing-----------------------------------------------------Agence France-Press reports that a class action lawsuit againstSpain's Bankia opened on Feb. 4 with 660 small shareholders whosay they were misled during the financial giant's 2011 stocklisting asking to be reimbursed 6.3 million euros ($7 million).

Bankia, which was bailed out in 2012, is accused ofmisrepresenting its accounts ahead of the flotation and hundredsof customers who say they lost their money after converting theirsavings to shares have brought separate lawsuits against thegroup.

In January, Spain's Supreme Court said "serious inaccuracies" inthe information provided by Bankia for the listing led investorsinto error -- opening the way for hundreds of millions of euros incompensation.

The Supreme Court said that small shareholders had no source offinancial data on which to base their decision to buy sharesexcept what Bankia told them.

Jose Plaza, the lawyer for the 660 shareholders, asked a Madridcourt on Feb. 4 that they be reimbursed the 6.3 million euros theyinvested in Bankia shares, plus interest.

The ruling has been postponed to a later date.

Former IMF head Rodrigo Rato, who was chairman of Bankia at thetime of the listing, is also being investigated, in separateproceedings, along with other suspects.

Bankia and its parent company BFA said in December they had setaside 1.8 billion euros in provisions for claims that by the endof 2014 already stacked up to 819 million euros.

BLACKHAWK MINING: Faces "May" Suit for Unlawful Mass Layoffs------------------------------------------------------------Jeremy May, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, v. Blackhawk Mining, LLC, Case: 5:15-cv-00377-JMH(E.D.Ken., December 18, 2015), was brought on behalf of himself,and other similarly situated former employees who worked forDefendant and who were allegedly terminated without cause, as partof, or as the foreseeable result of, plant closings or masslayoffs ordered by Defendant and who were not provided 60 daysadvance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, asrequired by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

BNY Mellon is a Delaware corporation with headquarter at New York,New York. BNY Mellon is the product of the July 1, 2007 merger ofThe Bank of New York Company, Inc. and Mellon FinancialCorporation. Its website claims it had $27.9 trillion undercustody or administration on September 30, 2012.

Burberry Limited operates apparel stores in the United States,Mexico, Canada, and Brazil. The company offers women's, men's, andchildren's trench coats; and women's wear, such as leather andshearling, quilts and puffers, jackets, tailoring, dresses,shirts, sweaters, jersey wear, prorsum, skirts, trousers, denims,swimwear, loungewear, and sport wear. The Company is based in NewYork, New York.

Carmex is a pharmaceutical company that commercially manufacturesskin care products for both national and international sale out ofits U.S. headquarters located in 9750 South Franklin Drive,Franklin, Wisconsin 53132.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a classconsisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased orotherwise acquired Chipotle securities between February 4, 2015and January 5, 2016, both dates inclusive.

Chipotle, together with its subsidiaries, develops and operatesfast-casual and fresh Mexican food restaurants. As of November 10,2015, it operated approximately 1,900 restaurants, including 17Chipotle restaurants outside the United States and 11 ShopHouseSoutheast Asian Kitchen restaurants.

CIGNA CORP: April 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit hasbeen filed against Cigna Corporation and certain of its officers.The class action, filed in United States District Court, Districtof Connecticut, and docketed under 16-cv-00182, is on behalf of aclass consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Cignasecurities between February 27, 2014 and January 21, 2016inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks torecover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of thefederal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cigna securities during theClass Period, you have until April 6, 2016 to ask the Court toappoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.comTo discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), tollfree, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged toinclude their mailing address, telephone number, and number ofshares purchased.

Cigna, a health services organization, provides insurance andrelated products and services in the United States andinternationally. The Company distributes its products andservices through insurance brokers and insurance consultants ordirectly to employers, unions, and other groups, as well asthrough the direct response television and the Internet.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendantsmade materially false and misleading statements regarding theCompany's business, operational and compliance policies.Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statementsand/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cigna's appeals and grievancesprocedures were not in compliance with federal standards; (ii)Cigna's noncompliance with federal standards posed a seriousthreat to the health and safety of Medicare beneficiaries; and(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Cigna's public statements werematerially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 22, 2016, pre-market, Cigna filed a Form 8-K with theSEC, disclosing, that on January 21, 2016, Cigna was notified bythe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of its intent toimpose intermediate sanctions suspending the enrollment of andmarketing to new customers of all Cigna Medicare Advantage andStandalone Prescription Drug Plan Contracts, effective at 11:59p.m. on January 21, 2016, citing deficiencies in Cigna'soperations of its Parts C and D appeals and grievances, Part Dformulary and benefit administration, and compliance program.

On this news, Cigna stock fell from $140.13 on January 21, 2016,to close at $135.85 on January 25, 2016, a two-day drop of $4.28.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, ThePomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation.

CITY FITNESS: "Andrews" Suit Asserts FLSA, Pa. Wage Law Violation-----------------------------------------------------------------JADE ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. CITY FITNESS MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a CITY FITNESSPHILADELPHIA, also d/b/a CITY FITNESS PHILLY, Case 2:15-cv-06792-LDD (E.D.Pa., December 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendant hasimproperly failed to pay her and all similarly situated employeescompensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, thePennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Paymentand Collection Law.

CNOVA NV: March 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set-----------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 4 disclosed that a classaction lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the SouthernDistrict of New York on behalf of investors who purchased CnovaN.V. securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Initial PublicOffering on or about November 19, 2014, and/or betweenNovember 19, 2014 and December 18, 2015.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantsfailed to disclose that Cnova issued misleading financialstatements by failing to disclose that the Company lacked adequateinternal financial controls and that it had overstated net sales,failed to properly write-off the value of returned items,misstated accounts receivable for damaged/returned items, andoverstated EBIT.

If you suffered a loss in Cnova you have until March 21, 2016 torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Yourability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve asa lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contactVincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com by telephone at212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/cnova-n-v

COIN: Faces Class Action Over Marketing Defective Product---------------------------------------------------------JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that COIN, theone card to rule them all, has been slapped with a class actionlawsuit filed by Kronenberger Rosenfeld, a San Francisco-based lawfirm that specializes in internet, tech and media law. The suitwas filed against COIN alleging they "knowingly marketed adefective product". According to information released byKronenberger, COIN "violated several unfair competition and falseadvertising laws during a vastly successful crowdfundingcampaign". The suit asserts that COIN received millions ofdollars from consumers through a crowdfunding campaign for aproduct "the company knew could never work as advertised". Thelawsuit seeks monetary damages against Coin for false advertising,misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

"Our complaint alleges that Coin knowingly marketed a product thatit knew could not work the way they said it would," said leadattorney Karl Kronenberger. "The complaint further alleges thatCoin knew the statements in its crowdfunding video were false, butproceeded to line their pockets anyway, leaving consumers stuckwith a device that does not work the way Coin promised."

COIN launched a super successful pretail self-crowdfundingcampaign buttressed by a very creative pitch video that wentviral. The concept was to create a single credit-card sizeddevice that could store credit card information, including amagnetic strip. Users could upload credit card information whilepairing with a smartphone. The pitch was to minimize the need tocarry multiple cards in your wallet instead of a single card tomanage them all. Estimates placed the tally well into themillions of dollars as the initial goal of raising $50,000 wastopped in just 40 minutes. As many crowdfunding campaigns do,COIN struggled with delivery and delayed the product launch asdevelopment became mired in technological challenges. In Augustof 2014, COIN management issued an apology to backers stating;

"We are truly sorry that the first generation Coin is not readywhen we said it would. Our team has been working hard day/nightand weekends since May 2012 in an attempt to deliver Coin to youon time and while we are close, we are not at the finish line."At that time, COIN offered refunds to any and all backers whorequested one.

More recently, COIN has managed to get back on track deliveringproduct to early backers while announcing a 2.0 version along witha partnerships with MasterCard. On the home page, COIN statesover 300,000 devices have been sold. In January, COIN revealedthat over $282 million in payments had been completed using theCOIN card.

The Kronenberger lawsuit alleges that the central message inCoin's video was that the Coin device allowed consumers to carryjust one card, and leave all their other cards at home. Inaddition to the video, this one card message was echoed inmultiple press releases, other marketing efforts, and statementsby the Coin CEO to the media. The complaint also alleges thatafter receiving their Coin devices, consumers discovered that thedevices failed to work at terminals anywhere from 15 to more than40 percent of the time, resulting in consumers having to carrytheir actual credit cards despite owning a Coin device. Thefiling also asserts that the Coin device's security feature,designed to alert consumers when their Coin device was out ofrange of their smartphone, failed to work properly as consumerswere not alerted.

CONAGRA FOODS: "McCabe" Suit Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract-----------------------------------------------------------------Kevin McCabe, and all others similarly-situated v. Conagra Foods,Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00093 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeksdamages against the Defendant for breach of contract and breach ofimplied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiff alleged that beginning in 2010, ConAgra Foods, Inc.,has conducted an annual marketing promotion that it calls "ChildHunger Ends Here", in support of which ConAgra has made numerousrepresentations that are false and deceptive.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. is an American packaged foods companyheadquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. ConAgra makes and sells productsunder various brand names that are available in supermarkets,restaurants, and food service establishments.

CONTINENTAL: Recalls SRS Following Air Bag System Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Jeffrey Liggio, Esq., of Clark Fountain, in an article for LegalExaminer, reports that several weeks ago, Clark Fountain, filedsuit on behalf of 2008-2010 Honda Accord Owners regarding theirAirbag systems (SRS). This system is not a Takata system, but isinstead manufactured by Continental. Clark Fountain on Feb. 4learned that the issue is not limited to Honda at all.

On Feb. 4, Continental announced a recall of those systemsaffecting several hundred thousand vehicles, not limited to Honda,but also affecting some Chrysler Fiat, Volkswagen, andDaimler/Mercedes Benz Models.

Clark Fountain filed an amended complaint on Feb. 4

If you or a loved one owns or leases one of the affected vehicles,please be aware, and let them know. It may take some time toobtain relief, and they should be alerted to the fact that theairbag systems in their vehicle may not operate properly in theevent of a crash where the airbag was intended to operate.

The size of the settlement between the engineering firm andshareholders has not been disclosed, but it is believed to be amaterial portion of the original $15 million claim against thecompany.

The costs of the plaintiff in the action brought by Melbournelawyer Mark Elliott on behalf of shareholders have also beencovered by Downer EDI.

The settlement was brokered on the fourth day of a trial in theVictorian Supreme Court, one day after Justice John Digby orderedthe shareholders to hand over $685,000 as security for costsincurred by Downer EDI -- a fraction of the $1.9 million requestfor costs Downer EDI had made.

The court had already heard that Downer EDI knew a blow-out ofcosts and delays had put the project 12 months behind schedule and$117 million over budget more than a year before telling themarket of its troubles with the contract.

The court also heard that Downer EDI's executives had made apledge for "no more BS" in regards to the company's estimates forits deeply troubled Waratah train project in December 2009, sevenmonths before the market was informed the project had run off therails.

Lawyer for shareholders Norman O'Bryan, SC presented a range ofinternal documents to the court, including one report that showedthe project was over budget and lagging behind time because of"serious errors of judgment" and "hopelessly underestimated costs"in Downer EDI's initial bid for the contract, according to DownerRail head of finance Paul Levett.

Other documents showed Downer had even stopped paying the companysupplying the brakes on the trains as well as other suppliers tokeep a lid on costs, raising safety issues for commuters andcausing financial distress to its suppliers.

Meanwhile, emails sent between senior Downer executives in early2010 said Downer had been briefed by then premier Nathan Rees that"some [NSW] ministers would never want to deal with us again." Atthe time, the company maintained with investors that it was stillhopeful of getting the Sydney Rail contract.

DOWNER EDI: Shareholders' Lawyers Must Shoulder Security Costs--------------------------------------------------------------Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reportsthat a class action against Downer EDI has avoided being derailedafter the court ordered lawyers for shareholders to stump up afraction of the security for the costs incurred by the engineeringfirm's defense.

Lawyers for shareholders were ordered to provide $685,000 insecurity for the costs by 5:00 p.m. on Feb. 8, about a third ofthe $1.9 million in costs security Downer's legal team wasoriginally seeking.

Melbourne lawyer Mark Elliott who has brought the claim on behalfof shareholders said the order did not threaten the trial.Downer chief executive Grant Fenn will be called to give evidence.

"The case is not off the rails, the case is soldiering on,"Mr. Elliott told Fairfax Media.

"I'll be handing over a cheque for $685,000 tomorrow morning".The costs ruling was handed down by Justice John Digby at thebeginning of the Feb. 4 session in the Supreme Court of Victoria.The class action wrangling comes as Downer posted a 24 per centdrop in net profit to $72.1 million for six months ending December31.

Downer has been accused in a class action brought in the SupremeCourt of Victoria of keeping its costs overruns and delays to theWaratah project secret from its shareholders for at least sixmonths and up to one year.

Downer shocked the market in June 2010 with a $190 million writedown of its investment in the Waratah project due to costoverruns, delays and its need to inject more equity in theproject. The announcement wiped $585 million from the value ofDowner's shares.

Yet only six months earlier it had assured investors that theproject was on track.

In its defense Downer's lawyer Steven Finch, SC, said Downer'sinternal estimates of the project's costs and delays did notnecessarily warrant disclosure.

EMC: Faces Class Action Over $67-Billion Dell Takeover------------------------------------------------------Antony Savvas, writing for ChannelBiz, reports that a class actionlawsuit has been filed in the US to try and prevent Dell's $67billion takeover of EMC.

The Grant Law Firm has filed a class action complaint on behalf ofall public stockholders of EMC Corporation, who "are or will bedamaged" by a vote approving Dell's takeover.

The lawsuit claims that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectusfiled with the SEC by EMC on December 14, 2015, contains"materially false and misleading statements and omissions ofmaterial fact".

It also asserts that the analyses of the two investment adviserswho "opined upon the fairness" of the proposed transaction toEMC's shareholders from a financial point of view, are "materiallymisleading" and/or "make omissions of material fact".

The law firm is now seeking a lead plaintiff from among those itclaims will be negatively affected by the deal to get the classaction going.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf ofother class members in directing the litigation. The law firmwants to appoint a lead plaintiff by April 1 this year.

Senior executives from both Dell and EMC have gone on the charmoffensive since the acquisition was announced last year, toconvince the market and the channel that the deal is beneficialfor both companies.

FLINT MOBILE: Faces Abu Maisa over FLSA Violation-------------------------------------------------Abu Maisa, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarlySituated, the Plaintiff, v. Flint Mobile, Inc., Google, Inc.,Intuit, Inc., Paypal, Inc., Square, Inc., and Stripe, Inc.,the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-06338 (N.D. Cal., San FranciscoDivision, December 31, 2015), seeks to recover not less than theirUnruh Law minimum statutory damages of $4,000 for each violationof Unruh Law suffered by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair LaborStandards Act.

Flint Mobile provides mobile software products and services. TheCompany offers mobile payment applications for small businesseson-the-go. The Company is based in Redwood City, California.Google Inc. is a global technology company that designs and offersvarious products and services. The Company is primarily focused onweb-based search and display advertising and tools, desktop andmobile operating systems, consumer content, enterprise solutions,commerce and hardware products. The Company is based in MountainView, California. The Defendants are all Delaware corporations.

FLOWER FOODS: Class Actions Challenge Earnings Model----------------------------------------------------Mike Ozanian, writing for Forbes, reports that Timothy Ramey ofPivotal Research Group's take is much of Flowers earnings growthis due to the company's drivers -- the folks who deliver the bakedgoods to the stores -- being classified as independent contractorsrather than company employees. By doing so, Flowers enjoys alower distribution cost than some of its competitors--Rameyestimates that Flowers cost advantage is 400+ basis points ofmargin versus employee-delivered operators--such as the failedHostess Brands.

But Flowers may not be able to keep its earnings model intact toomuch longer. There has now been 18 class action suits filed onbehalf of its drivers--15 of which have been filed since May oflast year. The lawsuits allege the company violated the federalFair Labor Standards Act by classifying drivers on its deliveryroutes as contractors. The suits seek payment for overtime,employee benefits and other compensation. One of the earliestsuits, brought in North Carolina in 2012, was granted class-actionstatus in March 2015, after which 15 more were filed in otherstates.

The drivers appear to have a strong case. In July 2015, theAdministrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department ofLabor (DOL) offered an interpretation of "economic realities" asit applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL: "mostworkers are employees under the FLSA," a worker is an employeebased on the "economic realities . . . not by job titles or anyagreement the parties may make,". . ."the FLSA should be liberallyconstrued to provide broad coverge for workes," and that studiessuggest 10-30% of employers misclassify their employees asindependent contractors.

Here's how Flowers describes its independent distribution model.

The key question, it would appear from the DOL ruling, is if theinvestment by the company's distributors is used for the purposeof sustaining a business beyond the job or project the worker isperforming? The answer seems to be no. Why? Consider how Flowersruns its distribution system.

Flowers delivery drivers were, back in the day, company employees.But in the 1980s Flowers launched an innovative plan to privatizethe routes by creating independent operators. Distributors buytheir routes from Flowers. The distributors often put nothingdown and Flowers finances them with a note of up to 10 years andcharges 12% interest. In addition, the distributors typicallylease a truck, often through a lease arranged by Flowers.

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Town of Tonawanda Sues for Alleged Price Fixing-----------------------------------------------------------------Town of Tonawanda, New York on behalf of itself and all otherssimilarly situated, v. Frank A. Reichl, General ChemicalCorporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC; Gentek,Inc.; Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund; Chemtrade Logistics, Inc.;Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation; Chemtrade Chemicals Us, LLC; GeoSpecialty Chemicals; and John Does 1- 50, Case 2:15-cv-08739-SRC-CLW(D.N.J., December 18, 2015), arises out of an allegedconspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers andterritories with respect to the sale of aluminum sulfate (referredto herein as "alum") to governmental and privately-contractedwater district authorities and to pulp and paper companies in theUnited States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

GOPRO INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Calif.-------------------------------------------------------------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 4 disclosed that a classaction has been commenced in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers ofGoPro, Inc. securities during the period between July 21, 2015 andJanuary 13, 2016.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than 60 days from January 14, 2016. If you wish to discussthis action or have any questions concerning this notice or yourrights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Shawn A.Williams or David C. Walton of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or619/231-1058, or via e-mail at shawnw@rgrdlaw.com ordavew@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges GPRO and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.GPRO is a consumer electronics company primarily sellingmountable, wearable cameras and related accessories designed foractive or challenging physical environments, including, forexample, cameras mounted on musical instruments during concerts orworn by athletes during sporting events.

GPRO went public in June 2014, and in November 2014, GPROcommenced a secondary offering of its common stock, issuingapproximately 10.3 million additional shares at $75 per share.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantsissued false and misleading statements concerning the Company'scurrent financial condition and future revenue and earningsprospects, including the strength of demand for its traditionalHERO model camera products and its new HERO Session model cameras.These false and misleading statements caused the Company'ssecurities to trade at artificially inflated prices during theClass Period, with its stock price reaching a high of $64.74 pershare on August 10, 2015.

On October 28, 2015, the Company announced third quarter 2015financial results that badly missed the Company's revenue andearnings guidance by up to $45 million and $0.07, respectively.The Company explained that the shortfall was the result of weaksales of its new HERO Session line of cameras, which was pricedtoo high, and unfavorable sales trends, which had begun inJuly 2015. In addition, GoPro's inventory had increased by morethan $70 million in the quarter. On this news, the price of theCompany's stock fell from a close of $30.21 per share on October28, 2015 to a close of $25.62 per share on October 29, 2015.

On December 4, 2015, the Company cut the price of its key product,HERO4 Session, to $199.00 from $299.00, the second price cut sincethe product's release in July 2015. Then on January 13, 2016,GPRO announced its preliminary financial results for its 2015fourth quarter, which missed analysts' consensus estimates by $84million. In addition, GPRO announced that it would cut itsworkforce by 7% and take a $30 million charge to account forexcess inventory, among other things. These January 13, 2016disclosures caused the price of GPRO stock to decline from a closeof $14.61 per share on January 13, 2016 to a close of $12.48 pershare on January 14, 2016, a decline of 80% from the stock's ClassPeriod high price and more than 83% from the secondary offeringprice.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofGPRO securities during the Class Period. The plaintiff isrepresented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience inprosecuting investor class actions including actions involvingfinancial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --http://www.rgrdlaw.com/-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities andcorporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largestsecurities class action recoveries in history and was ranked firstin both the amount and number of shareholder class actionrecoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.

GREATER OMAHA: Says Former Worker's Class Action Without Merit--------------------------------------------------------------Russell Hubbard, writing for Omaha.com, reports that Greater OmahaPacking Co. said on Feb. 3 that a lawsuit filed by a former workerover hours and pay is without merit and contains allegations thatrun counter to the way the company treats its more than 1,000employees.

"His allegations are simply untrue," President Henry Davis said ina statement. "In fact, we categorically deny those allegationsand the implication that any of our team members are unfairlytreated."

Former boiler room worker Frederick Baglio filed a lawsuit in U.S.District Court in Omaha. The suit says he did not take lunchbreaks but was clocked out as if he did and was not paid for 2«hours of work per week. The suit seeks class-action status onbehalf of other workers at the South Omaha plant that processes asmany as 15,000 steers and heifers a week into smaller cuts formeat distributors.

On Feb. 3, Mr. Davis said Mr. Baglio worked at the company for sixyears and never complained of his treatment or working conditions.He aired no grievances about pay discrepancies or time allottedfor breaks or restroom visits, the company said."We believe that once all of the facts are known, a jury willagree that the allegations are totally unfounded and Greater OmahaPacking will be fully exonerated," Mr. Davis said.

Of the employees at Greater Omaha, Mr. Davis said, "We pay a fairwage, we provide good benefits for them and their families and weprovide a safe workplace."

Mr. Baglio's attorney, Robert Cowan of Houston's Bailey PeaveyBailey law firm, said he had no comment beyond what is stated inthe lawsuit.

The suit says Mr. Baglio "regularly worked in excess of 50 hoursper week, for seven consecutive days, and did not break for lunch.. . . He was not paid all compensation to which he was entitled."

Mr. Baglio couldn't be reached.

Greater Omaha executives said no one is denied lunch breaks. Theexecutives took a reporter on a tour of the plant.

At around noon, beef carcasses stopped entering the processingplant. Workers began moving in small groups to lunch rooms as thelast carcasses before lunch passed their work areas.

The lunchrooms began filling, with most workers eating a mealbrought from home. A few minutes before the lunch break started, afew workers left the production line and began heating up traysfor their co-workers in the microwaves, a procedure executivessaid has been in place at the company for years.

Greater Omaha said 80 percent of the company's employees have beenworking there for more than five years. Entry-level pay starts atabout $10 to $11 an hour, with higher pay for more experienced orhighly trained workers. Benefits, the company said, includehealth insurance, a free medical clinic staffed with doctors andnurses, English classes, citizenship assistance, 401(k) plans andstudent scholarships.

"The same applies when it comes to our complying with all wage andhour laws that apply to our team members," Mr. Davis said of thephilosophy at Greater Omaha, founded almost 100 years ago by hisgrandfather.

The suit alleges violation of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Actand asks a judge to extend the suit to all current and formerhourly plant employees in the three years preceding the suit'sfiling.

H.J. HEINZ: Faces "Alaei" Suit over "Made in USA" Product Label---------------------------------------------------------------Suzanne Alaei, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and KraftHeinz Foods Company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02961-MMA-DHB (S.D. Fla., December 31, 2015), seeks to recover damages,injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitableremedies, resulting from the Defendants' alleged unlawfullylabeling of consumable consumer packaged goods with the falsedesignation and representation that they are "Made in U.S.A." inviolations of Business & Professions Code and California UnfairCompetition Law.

H.J. Heinz Company is a limited partnership that is organized andexists under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principalplace of business in the State of Pennsylvania. The company isworld's leadings producers of healthy, convenient foods for everyeating occasion. Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a corporation thatis organized and exists under the laws of the State ofPennsylvania, with a principal place of business in the State ofPennsylvania. Heinz manufactures markets and/or sells variousconsumable consumer packaged goods.

Hair Party 24 Hours is a domestic business corporation based inNew York, New York. It is engaged in interstate commerce that hasgross sales in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)per year.

Health Net of California provides health care insurance and otherservices in California, the United States. It also implements atool that electronically prompts doctors to prescribe generics.The company was founded in 1977 and is based in Woodland Hills,California. Health Net Of California, Inc. operates as asubsidiary of Health Net Inc.

IMPRIVATA INC: April 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set---------------------------------------------------------------Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors of classaction against Imprivata, Inc. and certain of its officers. Theclass action, filed in United States District Court ofMassachusetts, is on behalf of a class consisting of all personsor entities who purchased Imprivata securities between July 30,2015 and November 2, 2015 inclusive. Such investors are advisedto contact Peretz Bronstein or his investor relations analyst,Yael Hurwitz at info@bgandg.com or 212-697-6484.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsmade materially false and misleading statements and/or omittedmaterial information concerning demand for the Company's ITsecurity offerings and its sales trends, which inflated the priceof Imprivata stock. The complaint continues to allege thatcertain Imprivata executives and insiders took advantage of theinflation by selling more than $72 million worth of personally-held Imprivata stock during this time period.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wishto review a copy of the Complaint and to join this action, pleasevisit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/#!impr/x2qgbTo discuss this action, or have any questions, please contactPeretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, YaelHurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 orvia email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include theirmailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss inImprivata, you have until April 4, 2016 to request that the Courtappoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in anyrecovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigationboutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit oflitigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition torepresenting institutions and other investor plaintiffs in classaction security litigation, the firm's expertise includes generalcorporate and commercial litigation, as well as securitiesarbitration.

Defendants are in the business of retail servicing. They providevarious retail services -- such as lighting, electricity,construction, and graphics -- to retail businesses or contractorswho in turn provide services to retail businesses.

JOE'S JEANS: Accused of Falsely Labeling Jeans "Made in USA"------------------------------------------------------------Elaine Livshin and Tracy Ganow, each individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, v. Joe's Jeans, Inc., a DelawareCorporation; Nordstrom, Inc., d/b/a Nordstrom Rack, a WashingtonCorporation; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Case No: BC 604717 (Cal.Super., County of Los Angeles, December 18, 2015), was filed onbehalf of all persons in the United States who purchased one ormore Joe's Jeans denim products that were allegedly falselylabeled as "Made in USA."

Defendant JOE'S JEANS, INC. designs, manufactures, markets, andlabels Joe's Jeans brand of apparel, which it sells throughoutCalifornia and the United States at twelve full-price retailstores, twenty outlet locations, and at over 135 retailers andboutiques, including many upscale and mid-tier department storessuch as Macy's, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale's, SaksFifth Avenue, Anthropologie, and Bergdorf Goodman. In addition,Joe's Jeans are also available to purchase online through theJoe's Jeans official website or through third-party sites.

KaloBios, a biopharmaceutical company, develops monoclonalantibody therapeutics for the treatment of cancer in the UnitedStates. The Company's product candidates include KB004, which isin a Phase II clinical trial for the treatment of myelodysplasticsyndrome and myelofibrosis; and KB003, which completed a Phase IIclinical trial for treatment of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.The Company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in South SanFrancisco, California.

KERR-MCGEE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Damages Ruling in Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Eric Mark, writing for Citizens Voice, reports that plaintiffs ina suit that alleges they were harmed by toxic waste from anow-shuttered creosote plant have appealed a federal judge'sruling that they must drop efforts to collect further damages.

The ruling handed down on Feb. 1 and the appeal filed on Feb. 3are the latest developments in a case that dates back to 2005,when about 4,000 people who lived near the creosote plant in Avocafiled suit against Kerr-McGee, which operated the plant for 40years before it closed in 1996.

Those plaintiffs -- who claimed they suffered a variety of seriousailments, including cancer, due to their exposure to toxicchemicals at the plant on a 35-acre site off York Avenue -- sharedin a multibillion-dollar settlement of a nationwide class-actionlawsuit reached in 2014 with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., parentcompany of Kerr-McGee.

That settlement included an injunction that prohibited theplaintiffs from "pursuing certain claims," according to the rulingissued on Feb. 1 by U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B.Forrest.

Many of the plaintiffs sought to collect further damages anyway.They felt that frequent corporate shuffling at Kerr-McGee and itspartner companies was calculated to protect the defendants frompaying damages rightfully owed to people who had been harmed bythe effects of toxic waste, according to Jim Haddock, former mayorof Avoca and one of the prime movers behind the suit.

"This case is not a cookie-cutter class action lawsuit,"Mr. Haddock said on Feb. 3. "This company has been proven tofraudulently transfer itself. . . . There have been at leastthree different remakes of Kerr-McGee."

Kerr-McGee -- now re-formed as a new company as part of Anadarko'sbankruptcy filing -- appealed to federal court to enforce theinjunction and prevent further appeals from the plaintiffs.

Judge Forrest, following a December hearing, ruled on Feb. 1 infavor of the defendants.

In a 59-page ruling, Judge Forrest referenced the complicatednature of the case.

"All of this takes some time to sort through, but at the end ofthe day the answer to the core question posed to this court isclear: No plausible claim is left for the Avoca claimants topursue against (new) Kerr-McGee Corp.," she wrote.

On Feb. 3 the plaintiffs appealed Forrest's ruling, in a filingfrom Weitz & Luxenberg, a New York City law firm.

The case now moves to the U.S. Court of Appeals, according to thatfiling.

The plaintiffs -- who come from Avoca and several municipalitiessurrounding it -- hold out hope for a successful appeal,Mr. Haddock said.

"Any time there's an appeal there's a chance," he said.

"You could see the judge talked about the complexity of the case,"he added. "There's a lot of hope here."

The appeal could also impact the amount of damages received inanother class-action lawsuit -- this one against former attorneyRobert Powell, a key player in Luzerne County's kids for cashscandal.

Mr. Powell served an 18-month prison sentence after admitting hepaid more than $700,000 in bribes to former Luzerne County judgesMark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan, who funneled juvenilesto a detention center he co-owned.

Mr. Powell last year reached a $4.75 million settlement of aclass-action suit with juveniles improperly jailed in hisdetention center.

The amount of damages Mr. Powell must pay the plaintiffs couldincrease, depending on Mr. Powell's net worth as of Dec. 21, 2016,according to the terms of the settlement.

Mr. Powell, who is now disbarred, formerly represented theplaintiffs in the Avoca environmental suit against Kerr-McGee. Hislaw firm's share of the settlement reached in 2014 was about$20 million, according to published reports.

If the Avoca plaintiffs successfully appeal for further damagesagainst Kerr-McGee, Mr. Powell's firm would receive a percentageof those damages. That could lead to a higher net worth forMr. Powell -- which in turn could increase the amount he owes toplaintiffs in the kids for cash suit, based on that settlementagreement.

KERR-MCGEE CORP: New Settlement Claimants Face Challenges---------------------------------------------------------Jennifer Learn-Andes, writing for Times Leader, reports that a newround of potential claimants against the former Kerr-McGee Corp.may face an uphill battle in their quest for damages from the now-defunct manufacturer of railroad ties, as they weren't amongthousands who participated in a class action lawsuit filed againstthe company in 2005.

Some past and present Avoca-area residents have come forward sincea bankruptcy settlement in the case -- first filed by since-disbarred attorney Robert Powell -- was publicized, saying theyalso have developed illnesses or health problems they blame onenvironmental contamination from the Avoca-area manufacturingactivities of Kerr-McGee and related entities.

Kingston lawyer Edward Ciarimboli said he is representing about 15people who are in this situation and continues to receiveinquiries from others, in light of recent local media coverage ofthe bankruptcy settlement agreement.

"We don't now how this will pan out," Mr. Ciarimboli said.

His firm, Fellerman & Ciarimboli, soon will start filing actionsseeking compensation for these clients from a pot of money setaside in the Kerr-McGee bankruptcy settlement for "future tortclaimants."

To be eligible for this money, requesters must prove their failureto participate in the class action was the result of "excusableneglect."

That means they must justify why they did not join thousands ofothers who jointly pursued their concerns in court.

For example, some people inquiring about a claim have said theydidn't know about the suit because they moved outside the area.

Mr. Ciarimboli does not believe relocation alone will be enough ofan argument because the opportunity to participate in the classaction was widely publicized, and involved notification letters toresidents living around the Kerr-McGee site.

One of his clients has a strong case because he moved to Texasafter a divorce and did not receive mail from his ex-wife that wassent to the local residence they previously shared,Mr. Ciarimboli said.

He also is representing several descendants of deceased arearesidents who died before the class action suit was initiated.

The argument that health issues developed after the class actionsuit may be rejected because class action participants only neededto have exposure to the contamination, not health problems, hesaid.

Why? To reserve settlement money for people who were shut out ofthe opportunity to participate -- not those who decided not toparticipate and want a "second bite at the apple," he said.

He believes about $600 million of the bankruptcy settlement wasset aside for future tort claims at Kerr-McGee locations acrossthe country, but that figure could not be verified on Feb. 4.

Jim Haddock, whose late mother was among the class-actionparticipants, said the total bankruptcy settlement was $5.1billion, with 12.5 percent going to victims in seven groups acrossthe country.

The Ohio-based Garretson Resolution Group is overseeing thesettlement trust. The trust overseers issue decisions on requestsfor future tort claims, and filers have the option to seek bindingor nonbinding arbitration or file court actions if they disagreewith the decision, according to Garretson publications.

Many who lived or worked near the Avoca property have receivedtheir payments in the bankruptcy settlement, but some are stillwaiting due to issues with Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements orthe processing of estates involving plaintiffs who have died, saidHaddock, who serves as an unofficial spokesperson for the Avocagroup.

The Avoca-area plaintiffs are trying to reactivate their 2005environmental contamination lawsuit in Luzerne County Court,arguing they were not made whole through the bankruptcysettlement.

A federal judge ruled the county suit must be dropped, agreeingwith the argument that the Avoca plaintiffs have no legalauthority to go back to the well. A notice of appeal challengingthat ruling has been filed.

The bankruptcy settlement covered about 32 percent of what the4,400 Avoca area plaintiffs had claimed in damages, saidMr. Haddock, who is Luzerne County's civil/criminal recordoverseer and a former Avoca mayor.

Mr. Haddock said around 1,600 Avoca-area residents also obtainedsettlements through a previous consolidated suit againstKerr-McGee several years before the Powell Law Group filed the2005 litigation. Plaintiffs who settled in the first round oflitigation could not participate in the later suit, he said.

KINDER MORGAN: Investor Gets $450,000 Incentive Fee---------------------------------------------------Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that a former investmentbanker landed a so-called incentive fee of $450,000, one of thelargest of its kind, for pursuing a securities lawsuit that led to$100 million in damages against Kinder Morgan Inc.

Peter Brinckerhoff of Florida was awarded the fee for putting inmore than 1,500 hours on the case, which resulted in one of thelargest damage awards in the history of Delaware's Court ofChancery, which heard the case. The lawsuit benefited otherinvestors who did not actively participate in the litigation.

"I don't know if it's the largest ever, but it's remarkably largefor a securities case," said Geoffrey Miller, a professor at NewYork University Law School who has researched incentive awards.

Several plaintiffs and defense attorneys who specialize insecurities class action cases said it was the largest incentiveaward they had seen.

Kinder Morgan later acquired El Paso, and is on the hook for thedamages.

Mr. Brinckerhoff had sought $1.35 million, a figure his lawyersconceded in court papers was "unusual," to compensate him forspending five years working on the case.

Mr. Brinckerhoff was an investment banker who retired fromDonaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette in 1991, according to courtdocuments. He could not be reached for comment.

Incentive awards have been criticized as "bounties" that encouragewasteful class actions, and in 2003 Congress briefly consideredbanning them in federal courts.

Mr. Laster, who approved the award, has a reputation for beingtough on fees when he questions the value of the litigation. InMr. Brinckerhoff's case, Mr. Laster awarded $33 million forlawyers with Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess and Bragar Eagel &Squire.

Lawyers for the law firms did not respond to a request forcomment.

Ted Frank, a critic of what he views as abusive tactics in classaction cases, said incentive awards are more troubling when theyare paid in settlement agreements.

"I don't necessarily have a problem with it," he said of theBrinckerhoff payment.

KLX INC: Faces "Mordy" Suit in Florida Dist. Ct.------------------------------------------------Ronald Mordy, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. KLX Inc., Amin J. Khoury, And MichaelF. Senft, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80023-RLR (S.D. Fla.,January 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages, including interest,reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, plusattorneys' fees and equitable/injunctive or other relief as theCourt may deem just and proper under the Securities Exchange Actof 1934.

KLX was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includesproviding trucking transportation services. KLX operates in theState of California.

LAND OF LINCOLN: Faces Insurance "Bait & Switch Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that twoChicago men have slapped a troubled provider of Obamacare healthinsurance policies with a class action lawsuit, alleging Land ofLincoln Health misled them into purchasing health plans on thebelief the plans would include coverage for procedures atUniversity of Chicago Medicine, even though Land of Lincolnallegedly knew the plans would not.

On Feb. 2, plaintiffs Daniel Blumenthal and Michael Hartzmark, wholive in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, filed their complaint inCook County Circuit Court against Chicago-based Land of LincolnMutual Health Insurance Company, which does business as Land ofLincoln Health Inc.

The complaint arose after Land of Lincoln notified the men inJanuary that the health insurance coverage they had just purchasedfrom Land of Lincoln in December was dropping the University ofChicago from its network of covered health providers, effectiveMarch 1.

Both men, who are not related, said they had purchased the healthcoverage through Land of Lincoln specifically because the planshad purportedly included coverage for care through University ofChicago Medicine.

Mr. Blumenthal said he required the coverage for the care heneeded to receive through University of Chicago Medicine fortreatment of a "chronic disease since he was diagnosed more than10 years ago." The complaint does not specify the condition, butsaid "the University of Chicago is recognized as a foremostpioneer in treating this disease, and plaintiff Blumenthal'scontinued treatment there is of critical importance to hishealth."

Mr. Hartzmark said he purchased coverage through Land of Lincolnfor him and his wife, "who was stricken with a rare and life-threatening viral infection in April 2015."

"Her life was saved by the medical staff at University of Chicago,and she ultimately recovered without suffering significant braindamage from what is typically a fatal condition," the complaintsaid.

The complaint said Mr. Hartzmark purchased the package throughLand of Lincoln because he believed it would grant him "continuityof care for his wife and the assurance of being able to utilizethe world-renowned medical institution in his own neighborhood."

Both men said they would not have purchased the coverage throughLand of Lincoln if they had known the insurer intended to dropcoverage for University of Chicago Medicine in 2016.

Yet the complaint, borrowing language from a Chicago Tribuneeditorial, called Land of Lincoln's actions a "bait and switch,"as the complaint alleged Land of Lincoln knew in December, priorto the Dec. 18 deadline for purchasing 2016 coverage, that it hadbeen unsuccessful at renegotiating reimbursement rates with theUniversity of Chicago.

"Prior to Dec. 18, 2015, University of Chicago informed defendant(Land of Lincoln) that it was not open to renegotiating theirreimbursement rates," the complaint said. "Defendant -- despitehaving the ability to instantaneously communicate with itscustomers via email -- did not disclose this development toconsumers purchasing insurance policies for in-network coveragefor University of Chicago in 2016."

Official notification of the coverage change came first from theUniversity of Chicago in a Jan. 14 letter to its patients. Landof Lincoln mailed a notification letter on Jan. 19, tellingcustomers they had until Jan. 31 to find new coverage if theywished to continue seeking care at in-network rates at Universityof Chicago Medicine.

Mr. Blumenthal said the change forced him to purchase a plancosting $170 more per month, as well as pay more than $500 formedication in mid-January.

Mr. Hartzmark said he was forced to purchase a plan costing $825more per month for the same coverage.

The plaintiffs are also asking the judge to certify a class ofother plaintiffs in the case, potentially including anyone whobought Land of Lincoln 2016 policies because the policies includedcoverage for care through University of Chicago Medicine.

The complaint comes as another strike against the troubled healthinsurer, created as a co-op in 2012 under the federal AffordableCare Act, also known as Obamacare. Land of Lincoln secured a $160million loan from the federal government in 2012 to launchoperations. It secured an insurance license from the state ofIllinois in 2013.

According to reports published in Crain's Chicago Business, Landof Lincoln has now lost $50 million since its inception, and hasstopped taking on new customers.

The class action complaint, which included counts of consumerfraud and unjust enrichment, asked the court to issue injunctionsbarring Land of Lincoln from continuing to engage in "similarconduct," or from obtaining releases from potential class members.The plaintiffs also requested damages including restitution, andstatutory, compensatory and punitive damages, with interest, plusattorney fees.

LEADS NATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Dickey" Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Jeffrey Dickey, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Leads National Corp., and Rapid Advance Canada, LLC,Case No. 4:16-cv-00030 (S.D. Tex., January 5, 2016) seeks tosecure redress for the Defendants' violation of the TelephoneConsumer Protection Act, specifically by causing unsolicited callsto be made to the Plaintiff's and other class members' cellulartelephones through the use of an auto-dialer and artificial orpre-recorded or artificial voice message.

The Defendants operate an online financial services company thatoffers flexible funding solutions to small and medium-sizedbusinesses.

LOVE CULTURE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages----------------------------------------------------------Elvira Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, v. Love Culture International, Inc., a Californiacorporation; and DOES I through 50, inclusive, Case No: BC604532(Cal. Super. County of Los Angeles, December 17, 2015), seeksrelief against Defendant for their alleged failure to pay allwages due, including both regular and overtime wages, and minimumwages; the failure to provide meal and rest periods orcompensation in lieu thereof; the failure to pay wages due duringemployment; the failure to pay wages due at separation ofemployment; and the failure to provide accurate itemized wagestatements upon payment of wages.

Masdeu Five Corporation is a Florida Corporation which has itsplace of business in Dade County. It is a service companyproviding security and escort services at Miami, and FortLauderdale International Airports.

Masdeu Five Corporation is a Florida Corporation which has itsplace of business in Dade County. It is a service companyproviding security and escort services at Miami, and FortLauderdale International Airports.

General Patrol Services is a service company providing securityand escort services at Miami, and Fort Lauderdale InternationalAirports. The Defendant operates as an organization which sellsand/or markets its services to customers from throughout theUnited States.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Petition Calls for Living Wage for Cheerleaders---------------------------------------------------------------WZZM13 reports that the Oakland Raiders' cheerleaders, theRaiderettes, and four others NFL cheerleading squads better wagesfiled class-action lawsuits against their respective teams seekingincreased compensation. Some of the cheerleaders said they weremaking less than $2 an hour and complained about workingconditions.

Now times are changing for the pom-pom shakers.

In the past 16 months, the Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals, Tampa BayBuccaneers and New York Jets agreed to settlements worth more than$2.6 million combined and the guarantee of minimum-wage pay.California legislators took action, ensuring professionalcheerleaders get workers' compensation and other benefits, and NewYork legislators introduced a similar bill.

A pending suit against the Buffalo Bills could force NFLCommissioner Roger Goodell to testify. He is a defendant becausehis signature is on a contract stipulating that the Bills'cheerleaders, the Jills, are not to be paid for performing atgames.

"It's like you see with any exploited group," said Hina Shah,director of the Women's Employment Rights Clinic at Golden GateCollege in San Francisco. "Once they understand what their rightsare, they become empowered to do something about it."

The fight began in 1995, when the Jills won the right to unionizeafter the National Labor Relations Board ruled the cheerleaderswere not independent contractors, but rather team employees. Evenearlier, the Bills pulled what attorneys for the cheerleadersdescribed as an illegal end-around.

The team farmed out the cheerleaders to a third party, which inturn told the cheerleaders they could continue only if they agreedto work as independent contractors -- and work for free. The uniondissolved, and one former cheerleader said work conditions grewintolerable.

Robin Bishop, a member of the cheerleading squad in 2000, said thecheerleaders were prohibited from wearing underwear with one setof uniforms because it would show panty lines.

During an unscheduled weigh-in, Mr. Bishop said, one of the twofemale cheerleading coaches pinched the side of Mr. Bishop'sstomach, called her "chunky," ordered her onto a diet and benchedher for one game. One of the few ways the cheerleaders could makemoney was to sell swimsuit calendars that included provocativephotos of the cheerleaders, according to Mr. Bishop.

"It just killed my self esteem as a 21-year-old girl," Mr. Bishoptold USA TODAY Sports, adding that she refused to abide by the no-underwear rule and was in good shape at the time she was benched."My coaches were especially heinous. They were just so cruel andmean.

"I remember thinking, 'Doesn't anybody else notice this?'"

Years later, an outsider took notice of the NFL cheerleaders'plight.

Diane Todd, who works in the health care industry and whosedaughter is a high school cheerleader in Southern California, saidin 2013 she searched online to see how much cheerleaders make.She discovered that some NFL cheerleaders make less than $1,000per year while mascots make as much as $65,000 per year.

"I was appalled," Ms. Todd said.

Soon after, she set up a petition on change.org calling on NFLteams to pay cheerleaders a living wage. The NFL did not act, butthe cheerleaders did.

One of the Raiderettes, who for privacy concerns was identified incourt documents as Lacy T., filed the first class-action suit inJanuary 2014. She heard from her counterparts soon after,according to Lacy T.'s attorney, Sharon Vinick.

"Lacy got a series of emails and texts from women she wascurrently dancing with and women who had been dancers that werevile and hateful, telling her that she had broken ranks with thesisterhood," Ms. Vinick told USA TODAY Sports.

"It was long overdue," said Alexa Brenneman, the former Bengalscheerleader who filed the suit against the team. "The issue ofpay equality for women is not a new thing. But it's new to theNFL, and I think for a while women were really kind of intimidatedto speak up."

Manouchcar Pierre-Val, the former Buccaneers cheerleader who filedsuit against the team, noted that many of the cheerleaders whoagreed to meager pay were young and naive.

"In a sense, it's kind of taking advantage of the situation," shesaid.

The litigation was brewing while the NFL dealt with the outcryafter video showed Ray Rice, then a running back with theBaltimore Ravens, punching his then-fiancee in the face.Ms. Vinick, the Bay Area attorney, said the cheerleaders' lawsuitsand NFL domestic violence crisis were revealing.

"That showed there was just a general disrespect for women by theNFL," she said, adding that she knows of no other imminentlawsuits. "I think the fact that virtually all of thecheerleaders are women, it's not a coincidence that they're theworst paid people out on the field."

Still the worst paid, said Ms. Vinick, even after the lawsuits.So far, the cheerleaders have won only the right to minimum wage,and Ms. Vinick and the cheerleaders said they've heard other teamshave increased pay to minimum wage after the four teams settledclass-action suits.

The Bills responded to the litigation by suspending operations ofthe cheerleaders. An NFL attorney filed an affidvavit saying thatshe, not Mr. Goodell, affixed the commissioner's signature by handstamp to approve broadcast rights, not the cheerleaders' contract.

"We expect clubs to comply with federal, state and local wagelaws," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.

Meanwhile, Ms. Todd said she is closely monitoring her petitioncalling on NFL teams to pay cheerleaders a living wage, and thesignatures of supporters have piled up.

Jerry Rice, the Hall of Fame NFL wide receiver, and Paula Abdul, aone-time cheerleader for the Los Angeles Lakers, are 156,000people who have signed the online petition. She is waiting onabout 44,000 more signatures.

"Once 200,000 is reached," Ms. Todd said by email, "I'm looking totake all signatures to NFL/Goodell for delivery."

NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Pay PA and ICs Overtime Wages------------------------------------------------------------Francisco Acevedo, et al. v. City of New York, New York, Case No.1:15-cv-10018 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2015) is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay their Protective Agents orInvestigative Consultants overtime compensation under the FairLabor Standard Act.

City of New York, New York operates a public agency with itsprincipal office and place of business located at Broadway andPark Row, New York, New York, 10007.

PIONEER ENERGY: Settles Gas Price Collusion Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Cris Vilela, writing for Kingston Region, reports that if you're aresident in Belleville or Kingston and have been feeling squeezedat the gas pump over the past few years, you're not the only one.

In fact, area residents may still be eligible for compensationfrom a class action lawsuit alleging gas price collusion in theKingston, Belleville and Brockville region that was settled inJanuary, 2014.

The website -- www.gasclassaction.com -- says that the lawsuit,which was brought forward by the law firm Siskinds LLP, allegedthat between May 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007, several area gasstations conspired to fix gasoline prices in Eastern Ontario.Specifically, Pioneer Energy, Canadian Tire, Mr. Gas and Suncor(Sunoco) were named in the suit. The defendants opted to settlethe suit and over $1.3 million has been set aside to settle theclaims, while not admitting any wrongdoing or liability as aresult of the settlement.

According to gasclassaction.com, compensation from the lawsuit isavailable for all persons who purchased gasoline (but not diesel)from a gas station in Eastern Ontario between the 2007 dates. Thesettlement funds will be divided proportionately betweenclaimants, based on the value of their submitted claims. Theminimum payment amount is expected to be approximately $25 perclaimant, but is dependent on the total number of claimants.

The website says that if you feel you are eligible to become amember of this class action lawsuit, you must file a claim on orbefore May 27, 2016 at gasclassaction.com. No proof is requiredas part of your claim unless you are selected for audit. However,all claims exceeding $5,000 will be audited, and at least 10 percent of all other claims will be audited randomly, so you must beprepared to provide proof of your purchases, or at the very leastproof of residency. Those audited claimants who provide onlyproof of residency will be limited to a claim of $1,500. Thereare no costs to submitting a claim, and payment of the claim isexpected to be between January and May of 2017.

The Defendants operate Precise Management, Inc., a propertymanagement business owned by Defendant Ighodaro. Defendantsprovide property management services to more than 100 residentialbuildings in New York City.

ROCKSTAR INC: Faces "Alaei" Suit over "Made in USA" Product Label-----------------------------------------------------------------Suzanne Alaei, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rockstar, Inc.; and RockstarBeverage Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02959-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal., December 31, 2015), seeks to recover damages,injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitableremedies, resulting from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labelingof Rockstar's consumable consumer packaged goods such as energydrinks and caffeinated drinks with the false designation andrepresentation that they are "Made in USA".

Rockstar, Inc. and Rockstar Beverage Corporation are corporationsorganized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, withtheir principal place of business in the State of Nevada.

Stripe is a Delaware corporation registered with the CaliforniaSecretary of State as a foreign corporation qualified to dobusiness in the State of California and which has its principalplace of business in San Francisco, California.

TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION: Faces Suit Over Taxi Medallion-------------------------------------------------------------CGS Taxi LLC, AKAL Taxi NYC LLC, D&P BAIDWAN LLC, Jaspreet Singh,C&R Bhogal LLC and Peg Taxi NYC LLC, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, v. The City Of New York and the NewYork City Taxi and Limousine Commission, (N.Y. Super., County ofNew York), alleges that the Defendant intentionally overstated thevalue of taxi medallions and hid the fact that the value of thosemedallions had already begun to decline. These alleged actionsand omissions purportedly constitute breach of contract,fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, violation ofthe General Business Law, and the NYC Code, state law and TLCrules, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in damages toplaintiffs and the plaintiff class.

New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission is an administrativeagency for the City of New York, created by Sec. 2300 of the NewYork City Charter. At all times relevant hereto, the TLC was andremains responsible for enforcing the statutes and regulationspertaining to the taxi industry.

TRONOX INC: Avoca Plaintiffs' Suits Against Kerr-McGee Barred-------------------------------------------------------------Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York granted the motion filed byKerr-McGee Corporation to enforce an injunction against roughly4,300 individuals (the "Avoca Plaintiffs") who allegedly sufferedinjuries as the result of a wood treatment plant between the years1956 and 1996.

In November 2014, the court approved a settlement which resolvedtwo lawsuits by Tronox, Incorporated and affiliated entities, andthe United States government against Kerr-Mcgee. As part of thatsettlement, the court issued a permanent injunction thatprohibited creditors in Tronox's bankruptcy action and others frompursuing certain claims.

The Avoca Plaintiffs, however, sought to restore a number ofactions before the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,Pennsylvania that were first filed in 2005 and then stayed pendingresolution of Tronox's bankruptcy proceedings. The AvocaPlaintiffs argued that their complaints also asserted direct andindirect claims against Kerr-McGee which were not extinguishedbased on theories of vicarious liability, respondeat superior,alter ego, and veil piercing.

Kerr-McGee then sought to enforce the injunction against the AvocaPlaintiffs, asserting that the injunction forecloses furtherlitigation by the said plaintiffs of these claims.

Judge Forrest concluded that Tronox's bankruptcy proceeding hasextinguished the Avoca Plaintiffs' claims in the Pennsylvaniastate action and that no plausible claim is left for the AvocaPlaintiffs to pursue against Kerr-McGee.

The class action arise out of Defendant's acts and omissions ofoperating as an automobile dealer without proper dealer licensing,failing to comply with the Autobroker's Endorsement Requirement,false advertising and unfair business practices.

The Defendant operates a website in which consumers in Californiamay logon to and download a certificate to purchase an automobileand to get the best price on said automobile from a participatingdealership.

Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,California. It provides a service where individuals can login to asoftware application on their smartphone, request a ride, and bepaired with an available driver.

UDF IV is a real estate investment trust (REIT) under the largerUnited Development Funding (UDF) umbrella. The Company primarilyoriginates, purchases, participates in, and holds for investmentsecured loans made directly by the Company or indirectly throughits affiliates to persons and entities for the acquisition anddevelopment of parcels of real property as single-familyresidential lots or mixed-use master planned residentialcommunities, for the construction of single-family homes and forcompleted model homes.

UNITED STATES: Class Actions Call for Military to Draft Women-------------------------------------------------------------Erin Delmore, writing NJTV News, reports that the U.S. military isfacing a class action for the government to draft women.

"We have an all-volunteer military. And in order to have in thefuture what we have today, which is the finest fighting force theworld has ever known, I need to be able to reach into the entiretyof the American population," said U.S. Secretary of Defense AshCarter in December.

Carter made history in December when he opened all jobs in themilitary, including combat roles, to women. And while the U.S.military is an all-volunteer force, we do maintain the draft fornearly all American men between the ages of 18 and 26. In mostcases, men have to register with the Selective Service Systemwithin 30 days of their 18th birthday. The Supreme Court ruledagainst conscripting women in 1981.

The logic goes like this: women haven't been eligible to registerfor the draft, because a country invokes the draft during times ofwar, meaning, it needs people to serve in combat, and those roleshave historically been closed off to women. But now that that'schanged, people are saying, why not this, too?

"Part of me believes that asking women to register as we ask mento register would maybe possibly open up more recruits as women[start] to think about, well, the military is an option for me,"said Sen. Claire McCaskill on Feb. 2.

"Senator, my personal view based on this lifting of restrictionfor assignment team at MOS that every American that is physicallyqualified should sign up for the draft," said Gen. Mark A. Milley,Army chief of staff.

Mr. Milley is one of the most powerful voices in the movement.Meet two of the most surprising: aspiring actress Monica PatriciaPinto from Union County, and pre-veterinary student Liz Kyle-LaBell from Morris County. The two are plaintiffs in what theirlawyer says is the only female-led class action suit to draftwomen in the country. Neither of these women wants to enlist inthe military.

"I'm doing it because of gender equality. I feel like if men arerequired to register with the draft, then women should be, too,"Ms. Kyle-LaBell said.

"So I brought that case and I brought a couple other cases basedupon that premise: treating guys fairly. But I didn't getanyplace. So I started thinking, when this draft case came up,initially I was thinking, well, I'll find a guy, bring the casewith a guy, but then I started thinking, it'd be easier as far asstanding goes, which is a legal rule, if I brought it with afemale. And what am I asking, or what are we asking? These ladiesare asking that they be treated fairly. That they not be barredfrom something just because an accident of nature made themfemale," Mr. Hollander said.

Whether you see it as women's rights or men's rights, Hollandersees a long road ahead. The case is now before Judge Ester Salasin New Jersey District Court. Mr. Hollander says the losing partymight hopscotch to the third circuit court of appeals and theloser of that case might head for the Supreme Court.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Lawyers Say Emissions Settlement No Easy Task---------------------------------------------------------------Howard Mintz, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that theinternational scandal over Volkswagen's cheating on emissionscontrols in its diesel engines has already produced a predictableresult -- one of the most massive legal assaults in U.S. history.

Now dozens of class-action lawsuits filed nationwide on behalf ofhundreds of thousands of angry Volkswagen owners, dealers andothers have been centralized in San Francisco federal court, wherethe scramble is on to hold the German automaker accountable in acase with billions of dollars at stake.

The lawsuits center on the fact that Volkswagen rigged theemissions controls in its diesel engines to evade strict airpollution standards in places like California. The company isaccused of deliberately cutting corners on cars touted for theirfuel efficiency and air quality emissions, engineering the dieselengines to essentially conceal the fact they were omitting as muchas 40 times allowable levels of pollutants.

David Fiol, a San Francisco lawyer and self-described "dedicatedenvironmentalist," was the prototypical customer Volkswagen soughtin marketing the eco-friendly features of its diesel engine cars.By the time Fiol decided to pull the trigger on a 2012 Jetta sportwagon for his wife, a former staffer for the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, he believed he'd picked the type of car thatcould help "save the planet."

But Mr. Fiol bought one of hundreds of thousands of cars caught upin the scandal -- and now he's gone from prototypical Volkswagencustomer to the lead plaintiff in the first of what has becomedozens of class-action lawsuits that have landed in court.

"A car is a statement of who you are," said Mr. Fiol, who enlistedSeattle class-action lawyer Steve Berman to take his case lastSeptember. "This car was a statement that you are smart and careabout the planet. But it turns out we were a bunch of dupes whoare damaging the planet."

In what has already evolved into a sprawling court battle filledwith legal stars, all of the cases against Volkswagen have beenassigned by a special national panel to San Francisco U.S.District Judge Charles Breyer, a veteran of some of the Bay Area'smost high-profile cases and brother of U.S. Supreme Court JusticeStephen Breyer.

The U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit against Volkswagen, filed inJanuary in Detroit, also has been shifted to Judge Breyer'scontrol, along with dozens of fraud actions filed by stateattorneys general. California Attorney General Kamala Harris isinvestigating Volkswagen's conduct under the state's strict airregulations, and any action she files is expected to land in JudgeBreyer's court.

With Volkswagen having already admitted wrongdoing publicly, legalexperts do not expect the cases to go to trial. In fact, JudgeBreyer's focus already has shifted to finding aresolution -- he has appointed former FBI Director Robert Muellerto oversee settlement efforts.

But lawyers involved in the case say settlement will be no easytask. U.S. owners of an estimated 600,000 Volkswagen cars in modelyears 2009 to 2015 want their vehicles either fixed or replaced,and to be compensated for the fact their cars are spewingexcessive amounts of pollution into the air when they were billedas among the most eco-friendly on the market.

"The problem is that saying 'We were liable,' or 'We screwed up,'doesn't solve the problem," said San Francisco lawyerElizabeth Cabraser, court-appointed head of a 21-member committeeof lawyers who assembled the class actions. "Saying we screwed updoes not fix the vehicle."

Peninsula lawyer Frank Pitre, who represents two StanfordUniversity professors who bought a tainted 2013 Volkswagen Passat,likens the case to the lawsuits against PG&E over the 2010pipeline explosion that leveled a San Bruno neighborhood, saying akey is to unearth how Volkswagen went about deceiving the public -- hoping to hold top management responsible and perhaps exposingthe company to greater damages and restaints on future businesspractices.

"This is coming in from all sides," Mr. Pitre said. "I'm not surewe have our arms around all of the cases."

Consumer advocates are hopeful the case will provide an adequateremedy for the Volkswagen car owners, but worry too much moneymight land in the pockets of lawyers, a common concern in class-action litigation. "Unfortunately, there is going to be awindfall for the lawyers," said Theodore Frank of the Center forClass Action Fairness.

The two lead lawyers for Volkswagen did not respond to requestsfor comment. But Volkswagen has pledged to fix the problem, whichextends to an estimated 11 million vehicles worldwide, and hasenlisted Kenneth Feinberg, who supervised the 9/11 victimcompensation fund, to handle the task for the automaker'saggrieved customers.

Compensation, however, remains a tricky question, according tolegal experts.

"The remedy question remains difficult because there appears to beno way that VW can give people the cars that it said it sold them-- fix the pollution problem and you compromise performance and/oreconomy," said Gregory Keating, a USC law professor. "So whatshould VW do? Buy them back? Fix and pay money damages for loss ofvalue? What's the next-best thing to do?"

Mr. Fiol, meanwhile, is frustrated by the experience. He and hiswife still drive the car, as they have no choice, but try toconserve on mileage to limit the environmental damage.

"We felt we were duped and felt like we turned into criminalsourselves," Mr. Fiol said. "We'd just like to have the carfixed."

VTECH ELECTRONICS: Faces "Giron" Suit Over Security Practices-------------------------------------------------------------Fredy Giron, individually and on behalf of others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. VTech Electronics North America,L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11885 (N.D. Ill., EasternDivision, December 31, 2015), seeks injunctive relief requiringVTech to implement and maintain security practices to comply withregulations designed to prevent and remedy breaches, as well asrestitution, damages, and other relief.

VTech Electronics designs, manufactures, and sells electroniclearning products for babies, infants, toddlers, and preschool andgrade school children in North America, Europe, and Asia. Itoffers learning systems, kids' laptops, tablets, and multi-functional handheld touch learning systems; electronic bunnies,dogs, and cats; and playsets, vehicles, and accessories. Thecompany also provides its products online. The Company wasformerly known as VTech Industries LLC and changed its name inApril 2002. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is based inArlington Heights, Illinois.

WAFFLE HOUSE: Pre-Employment Waiver Violates NLRA, Court Rules--------------------------------------------------------------Daniel Kitzes, Esq. -- daniel.kitzes@squirepb.com -- and SharBahmani, Esq. -- shar.bahmani@squirepb.com -- of Squire PattonBoggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reportsthat nearly two years after Waffle House Inc. employee CarrieHarris filed an unfair labor practices charge, the Georgia-basedbreakfast chain was unable to butter up the National LaborRelations Board (NLRB). Ms. Harris' complaint alleged that WaffleHouse's arbitration agreement that employees were required toexecute as a condition of their employment violated the NationalLabor Relations Act (NLRA) because the agreement contained a "noconsolidated, collective, or class action arbitrations" provision.On February 1, 2016, a split three-member panel of the NLRB agreedwith Harris that Waffle House's mandatory, pre-employment waiverviolated the NLRA because it precluded employees from pursuingclass or collective actions. The NLRB ordered Waffle House to cutthe class-action waiver from the mandatory arbitration agreement.

Since the NLRB's 2012 decision in D.R. Horton and 2014 decision inMurphy Oil, the NLRB has staunchly defended its position thatmandatory arbitration agreements that bar class or collectiveaction claims are unlawful. So why, in the face of such steadfastopposition, would Waffle House attempt to enforce a mandatorywaiver? Simple: the Fifth Circuit has expressly rejected theNLRB's position -- not once but twice -- and consistently ruledthat waivers, such as the one Waffle House used, are lawful andenforceable.

The Fifth Circuit's reversals of the Board's D.R. Horton andMurphy Oil decisions has national implications. Employers have theoption to appeal an NLRB decision with the D.C. Circuit or anycircuit in which it has sufficient business operations. Therefore,employers with sufficient contacts in Fifth Circuit states mayappeal an NLRB decision invalidating their arbitration agreementseven where an unfair labor practices charge has been filed againstthe employer outside the Fifth Circuit. Unfortunately, however,this leaves Waffle House and other employers caught in the middleof the ongoing song and dance performed by the NLRB and the FifthCircuit.

Because the NLRB is not bound by federal court decisions exceptthose rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the difference ofopinion between the Fifth Circuit and the NLRB is likely tocontinue simmering until the nation's high court weighs in on theissue. Some employers have attempted to avoid costly battles withthe NLRB by cooking up arbitration agreements with opt-outprovisions for class-action waivers. However, this approach wasrecently rejected by another split NLRB panel with its recentDecember 22, 2015 RPM Pizza, LLC decision. The RPM Pizza decisionwas immediately submitted for appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

WESTERN CONCRETE: Sued for Violations of FLSA, Tex. Labor Code--------------------------------------------------------------Christopher Lozano and Augustine Loza, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated, v. Western Concrete Pumping,Inc. and Chuck Reed, an individual, Brett Reid, an individual,Case 1:15-cv-01192 (W.D.Tex., December 18, 2015), seeks damagesand other legal and equitable relief from the Defendants foralleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and TexasLabor Code.

XYZ CORP: "Park" Suit Alleges Violation of Labor Laws-----------------------------------------------------Young Dol Park, individually and on behalf of all other employeessimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. XYZ Corp, d/b/a New SeafoodGalaxy, Hye Won Oh, and John Does and Jane Does 1-10, theDefendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07437 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2015),seeks monetary damages and affirmative relief based uponDefendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New YorkMinimum Wage Act, and Labor Law of the State of New York.

XYZ Corp is a New York Corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at Franklin Square, New York.

The XYZ Limousine is a domestic business corporation organizedunder the laws of the State of New York with a principal addressat Brooklyn, New York. The Company has gross sales in excess of$500,000 per year.

* Chief Justice Roberts Seeks to Limit Plaintiffs' Access---------------------------------------------------------KTVB.com reports that by siding with the Supreme Court's liberalwing on two major cases, Chief Justice John Roberts lent credenceto conservatives' concerns that they can't count on his vote.

But as he moves into his second decade as the nation's 17th chiefjustice, Justice Roberts is proving to be strikingly consistent inone area that conservatives applaud. He wants to close thecourthouse doors to challengers with tenuous legal grounds orclaims, thereby limiting the role of the judicial branch he leads.

That desire has been on display regularly during the first half ofthe high court's 2015 term, both in rulings Chief Justice Robertsjoined and in those he opposed. At nearly every opportunity, hevoted to limit plaintiffs' access -- demanding that they provebeing harmed, back up their challenge with facts, and opt forarbitration over litigation.

The chief justice wrote the court's first decision of the term,ruling Dec. 1 that a California woman had no right to sue theAustrian national railroad in a U.S. court for severe injuries shesuffered on a train platform in Innsbruck.

Two weeks later, he joined the court's 6-3 majority ruling thatCalifornia customers cannot join a class action lawsuit againstsatellite TV provider DIRECTV because a federal law favoringarbitration over litigation trumps state law.

Chief Justice Roberts closed out the month in his year-end reportDec. 31 by lauding federal rules changes aimed at cutting down onfrivolous lawsuits and dilatory practices that delay justice. Inessence, he called for a leaner, meaner federal bench and bar.

"We must engineer a change in our legal culture that places apremium on the public's interest in speedy, fair, and efficientjustice," Chief Justice Roberts said.

In January, Chief Justice Roberts didn't get his way in a class-action decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that let aplaintiff pursue his case even after the company he sued offeredfull restitution. The chief justice wrote a stinging, 10-pagedissent.

"A plaintiff is not the judge of whether federal litigation isnecessary, and a mere desire that there be federal litigation --for whatever reason -- does not make it necessary," Chief JusticeRoberts said.

Two more class action cases argued in November likely will bedecided soon. In both cases, Chief Justice Roberts askedskeptical questions.

The bigger showdown may come in April, when the court hears theObama administration's challenge to a federal appeals court orderblocking its immigration initiative. The program would delaydeportation of more than 4 million adults whose children arecitizens or lawful residents.

A key question is whether Texas and 25 other states are qualifiedto bring the case, based solely on the cost of issuing driver'slicenses. If Chief Justice Roberts holds true to form on court"standing," his vote might help the administration.

More malleable on other issues, to the consternation ofconservatives, Chief Justice Roberts has been a stickler on courtaccess his entire career. At his confirmation hearing in 2005, hecited Chief Justice John Jay's refusal in 1793 to offer advice toPresident George Washington on the war between Great Britain andFrance. He dredged up that 223-year-old letter again in hisrecent class action dissent.

"Judges should be very careful to make sure they've got a realcase or controversy before them," Chief Justice Roberts said.

Over the years, the chief justice has consistently voted to closethe courthouse doors on claims and claimants he judged to bedubious -- and not only when it benefited the conservative cause.His refusal in 2013 to let opponents of gay marriage in Californiarepresent the state in a lawsuit brought by gay and lesbiancouples brought same-sex marriage to the nation's most populousstate.

In a report on Chief Justice Roberts' first decade as chiefjustice, the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center foundhim uniformly stingy on standing and generous on forcedarbitration.

"He has repeatedly emphasized that the role of the courts shouldbe limited, that they're not there to solve policy debates," saysElizabeth Wydra, the group's president.

Chief Justice Roberts' preferences and his court's precedents arestarting to filter down to lower federal courts. In the yearending Sept. 30, the number of cases filed at federal appellate,district and bankruptcy cases all declined, following a trendbegun several years ago. The Supreme Court has seen a 13% dropover five years.

"The consumer is effectively shut out from the civil justicesystem, and the employer or the corporation is effectivelycreating its own law," Mr. Wolfman says.

Conservatives say Roberts isn't picking winners and losers. Theysee his goal as cajoling courts to play a more limited role insociety, like that of an umpire at a baseball game -- a favoriteRoberts analogy.

"The chief justice, in particular, and the majority on the courtare suspicious of using the courts as a way of addressing largerquestions of social or economic policy," says Jonathan Adler, aprofessor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. "Thechief does not want the court to be at the center of high-profile,high-consequence fights."* Class Action Reform Bill Not That Radical, Legal Expert Says--------------------------------------------------------------Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a classaction reform bill currently making its way through Congress isn'tthat radical, one legal expert says.

Jason Johnston, a law professor at University of Virginia whoteaches courses on contracts, economic regulation and torts, amongothers, said the aim of the bill, H.R. 1927 or the Fairness inClass Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim TransparencyAct of 2015, is something that's already expected of federal courtjudges.

Mr. Johnston, who is currently working on a study of consumerclass actions, explained that, at the certification stage, federaljudges need to make sure common issues predominate.

"If they don't do that, then they shouldn't certify the class,plain and simple," he said. "The problem is, while most of thesejudges take their jobs seriously, there are a lot who don't. Sothey have a class certified when it probably really shouldn't.

"And I think that's what this bill is trying to get at. In thatsense, it's important."

In December, the class action reform bill was merged with a billthat targets the asbestos injury compensation system. In January,after hours of debate and the rejection of several Democrat-proposed amendments, the Republican-controlled House passed themega-bill 211-188. Sixteen Republicans voted against the bill. NoDemocrat voted for it.

The legislation aims to reform the current federal class actionlawsuit framework by requiring uninjured parties to be part ofseparate class action lawsuits than those parties experiencingmore extensive injuries.

"Only those people who share injuries of the same type and extentshould be part of a class action lawsuit," House JudiciaryCommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said when introducing thebill in April.

According to data from the Administrative Office of the U.S.Courts, the legislation could reduce the number of class actionlawsuits filed and the number of plaintiffs in them, but alsocould increase the administrative burden on the courts.

Mr. Johnston shot down arguments by the bill's opponents that itmakes nearly all class actions impossible to bring.

"I've heard that some argue this might make it more difficult tobring, for example, civil rights lawsuits," he said. "But I don'tsee why that would be the case. Even in a civil rights classaction, if someone has suffered discrimination in some form,again, as a judge, I'm supposed to ensure that everyone in theclass has suffered that same type of discrimination."

The bill basically will end up weeding out those frivolous, orweak, class actions, he said.

"I can't even tell you how many cases I've seen where peoplehaven't suffered an injury, much less the same one," Mr. Johnstonsaid of his current study, which takes a look at consumer classactions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districtof Illinois.

Mr. Johnston agreed with proponents that such overbroad, no-injuryclass actions typically only result in big paydays for attorneys,often leaving classes with next to nothing.

"The big concrete economic effect (of the bill) is on the trialbar," he said. "Plaintiffs attorneys make a lot of money on theseclass actions, but they generate very little in terms of monetarypayouts for the class.

"So the trial bar could lose a lot of money if this passes."

But, of course, it won't, Mr. Johnston said.

He said if it passes the Senate, it won't be overwhelmingly. Andthe White House already has threatened to veto the bill.

"The trial bar is one of the biggest contributors to Senate andPresidential campaigns," Mr. Johnston noted.

Indeed, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid could end up killingit, given his own ties to plaintiffs' firms. According toOpenSecrets.org -- an online resource for federal campaigncontributions and lobbying data -- six of Reid's top seven, andeight of his top 12, political donors in the 2014 cycle wereplaintiffs' firms with significant asbestos action.

Stacey Slaughter, a partner at the Minneapolis and New Yorkoffices of Robins Kaplan LLP, said she expects the measure to passthe Senate -- largely along party lines, similar to the Housevote.

Ms. Slaughter, whose firm represents clients on both sides of thelegislation, said the bill has its pluses and minuses.

Proponents, she said, argue that the measure will separate classmembers who are actually injured from those who are not, makingcompensation and recovery fair.

Critics, she pointed out, contend the legislation simply makes iteasier for a company to avoid liability to all its victims.

However, plaintiffs attorneys tend to target smaller firms, Mr.Johnston said. And the settlements can be "devastating," he said.

"The question is, are these lawsuits that effective? The trial barargues that their fees are justified because these class actionsettlements deter this type of behavior by other companies," hesaid. "But I can't say that's the case. So far, from the caseI've studied, I would say no. I haven't seen anything that hasshown a change in behavior on the part of defendants.

"So then the question is, if they're compensating classes properlyand not deterring defendants, then why are these attorneys gettingmillions?"

Mr. Johnston said he expects the bill, if vetoed by PresidentBarack Obama, to be introduced again in the near future.

"Bills like this will continue to be put forth in Congress," hesaid, confidently.

* New Bill Aims to Strictly Limit Use of Arbitration----------------------------------------------------Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, writing for The NewYork Times, report that two leading Senate Democrats introduced abill on Feb. 4 that would strictly limit the use of arbitration, aprocess used to resolve legal disputes that is often stackedagainst consumers.

The bill, introduced by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat ofVermont, and co-sponsored by Senator Al Franken, Democrat ofMinnesota, would prevent civil rights cases, employment disputesand other crucial lawsuits from being forced into arbitration,where judges and juries have been replaced by arbitrators whocommonly consider the companies their clients.

Regulators and lawmakers have been pushing to prevent companies,large and small, from inserting arbitration clauses in contracts.It is virtually impossible to rent a car, open a bank account, geta job or enroll an elderly parent in a nursing home withoutsigning away the right to take a case to court.

Embedded in tens of millions of contracts, the clauses preventAmericans from joining in class-action lawsuits, the onlyrealistic way that an individual can do battle with a wealthycorporation.

The prevalence of arbitration clauses was the subject of a seriesof articles in The New York Times last year. Since then, effortsto rein in the practice have gained momentum, giving rise toseveral legislative proposals and calls on the Obamaadministration to use executive authority to bar federalcontractors from using arbitration.

In its investigation, based on thousands of court records andinterviews with hundreds of lawyers, judges and arbitrators in 35states, The Times found that by using arbitration clausescorporations can circumvent the courts and quash challenges todiscrimination, predatory lending and even wrongful death.

Once their class action is derailed, few people, The Times found,go to arbitration at all. Those who do confront a system thatgives companies so much latitude that in some cases they canrequire customers to go to Christian arbitration, which is boundby the Bible rather than state or federal law.

The bill introduced on Feb. 4 is likely to face intenseopposition, in Congress and from the business lobby. Other bills,including one that aimed to protect exempt service members fromarbitration, have met fierce resistance from banks and the U.S.Chamber of Commerce.

Behind the latest bill is an acknowledgment that critical lawsresulting from the civil rights and disability rights movementsare fatally undermined by arbitration.

If enacted, the bill would make claims brought under laws like theFamily Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act exemptfrom arbitration.

In a statement on Feb. 4, Mr. Leahy highlighted the example of awoman who lost her job after a miscarriage prevented her fromgoing to work, a potential violation of the Family and MedicalLeave Act. Her case was pushed out of court and into arbitration.

"Our legislation is common-sense reform that will help to restoreAmericans' right to challenge unfair practices by corporations,and it needs to be passed into law," Mr. Franken said.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.